I think simply voting is not enough to help so here is why I voted "No":

- Lazarus for Windows only doesn't provide additional advantages for me over the current Delphi version. Cross-platform Lazarus might be interesting though
- Also, one has to study if Lazarus (Free & open source) users are willing to pay for components... I honestly do not know. Is it worth the effort ?
- There has been a lot of feature requests and there are a lot of room for enhancements to TRichView and development has been relatively slow recently so I worry about TRV's future if time is spent on another compiler
- Also you are about to (or already) find additional competition from a new component from a (very) popular vendor on the Delphi/Win platform. I'm sure you see which one I'm referring to. TRV needs to evolve fast as this vendor will eventually catch up

A few personal thoughts which might help:
- The world is moving to the Web and Mobile. TRV needs to be enhanced to have excellent support for HTML/CSS content out of the box. Currently, you have excellent support for an outdated, almost unused format (RTF). This is still useful for some but the de-facto standard should now be HTML: TRV should be able to seamlessly open/edit/save HTML/CSS content with excellent compatibility.
- Even though I do not use FireMonkey and hope you won't follow that path, it might be easier to provide this additional functionality to gain customers instead of Lazarus. I believe FireMonkey provides some level of abstraction (TCanvas) which can be leveraged from your code.

Please keep in mind that this is only my personal opinion and as I know nothing about your business, I simply hope this helps understand why I voted No.

Thank you for the detailed explanation of your opinion.
Yes, our next major goals are FireMonkey (starting from Windows and MacOS versions) and native HTML reading (we already implemented our HTML and CSS parsers, but froze this work), after that - native DocX reading.

The Lazarus question is asked because it is much more easy to support, because its component framework is very similar to VCL. And Lazarus can be used not only because it is open source, but because RAD Studio is expensive. But I understand and share your concerns about a questionable Free Pascal market and about development time that could be spent to higher priority tasks.

In my opinion it's not necessary to port TRichView to Lazarus. The Lazarus component will be more of the same. There is already Delphi and C++ Builder support. You should find out if there are paying customers for new development and improvement.

Instead, focus on full reading and writing HTML and CSS (for saving data and share date in the cloud and make it compatible to and shareable with other HTML editors), cross platform development (like FireMonkey) for mobile and tablet, Mac OS et cetera. The future of the desktop PC like it is now, is unsure if you ask me. You need to expand to more platforms to secure your future.

Hello Sergey,
Yes, supporting Lazarus would be huge.
Here is why.
Delphi future is uncertain, it has been sold again and it's being priced out of reach for most people.

Many more Delphi Developers will be moving to Lazarus and FPC as Delphi continues it's slow long death.

I stopped using Delphi in 2012 and Lazarus is outstanding. I would never go back to Delphi. I found replacments for things like the Quantum Grid and I still purchase components from Devart for SSH and Postgresql support.

Delphi developers moving to Lazarus will buy components if they are really good and Trichview is really good.

I have several projects which I can't convert to Lazarus because there is no alternative to Trichview.

I could spend 1000+ dollars on Delphi or use that money to purchase useful components for Lazarus.

I would really love to see a Lazarus version even if the initial version is windows only, but having it work on linux under GTK or QT would be great as well.

Lazarus did the cross platform thing right and it works great, it's what Kylix could have been. I can even cross compile my apps on linux to win32 or 64 with no issues at all. Delphi can't do that and probably never will.

Developing web and mobile is a pain in the rear and
Web applications are the most unsecure apps simply by nature.
Rich desktop apps are far superior.
So don't stop any plans for Lazarus because of web and mobile.

I work in a corp environment and the web apps we have are all garbage the only advantage is they are easier to deploy.

Lazarus is easier to adopt, has a solid, growing ecosystem,
because it's open and free (general trend with large languages /tools).
Lazarus can produce all types of software, the process is fully transparent.
It can produce high quality binaries and upgrades for endusers for decades.
RV would further increase the value of Lazarus, attracting more users.
RV would be more visible to more people.

As for functionality (and marketing bullet points), although I don't need this,
further coverage of HTML, CSS seems to have the largest potential.

NO. In spite of its touted superiority from its supporters, Lazarus/FPC barely got generics, still does not have attributes and lags behind in many ways. Those who use it, of course, are willing to live with the limitations, but the market is tiny.

I would talk to Idera and found out what the market size is for FMX right now, that is obviously the future for them.

That being said, if supporting lazarus is so easy, as its proponents often claim in many forums, then it might be worth it.

There is a dev environment based off of Lazarus that you've probably heard of. This environment supposedly allow development to ALL kinds of (cross-) compile platforms, including Windows, Linus, FreeBSD, ARM Processors, etc.

SO, if porting to Lazarus also makes it available to this coding environment, then my answer is not maybe or possibly, but a whole-hearted YES.

The platform I am talking about is Typhon.

Note: My computer crashed while updating to SP1 for Win7, and I lost everything, but I do have backups The question I have is more of what updates I have to download to come up-to-date?